linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] softirq: Reserve a bit in tasklet.state for the user

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:10:23 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] softirq: Reserve a bit in tasklet.state for the user

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:59:32PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
> > On 01/23/2017 08:33 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Allow the user to communicate with the tasklet through the atomic state
> > > field by assigning a bit for their use. This can be used, for example,
> > > to differentiate between a tasklet called following an irq or from
> > > process context, where some hardware state may only be valid after the
> > > irq.

Egads, this sounds like a horrible hack. What does 'after and irq' even
mean?